There - that's more like it you pratt.
The point is that rather than attempting to stop the slaughter Britain is deliberately using the conflict as a market place to sell arms and equipment - it was only when the gassing took the conflict into a new realm that they have drawn back.
Assad has to be stopped, yet Britain has sold arms and chemical weapons to both sides of the conflict - in Assad's case, for over six years.
The UN should have intervened when the protests turned into a massacre, failing that happening, the West, who has acted as a long-term armourer and supporter of the Assad regime, has a duty to stop those massacres, not to take one side or the other - that would be just as much of a disaster.
Assad is a killer - a war criminal - and a customer for British chemoical components - his supporters have to be won over and not become an oppressed group to be terrorised as Assad's victims have for decades this is not going to happen with partisan foreign intervention.
McGrath of Harlow made the point excellently - nobody wants to see any of these countries taken over by the religious nutters who have become involved.
The priority is to stop the slaughter; when that happens, if we are going to have any influence in what happens next it is not by selling arms to whoever is on hand, as has been the case up to now, in Syria, Bahrain, Libya - and in future, any of the other non democratic regimes Britain treats as "valued customers"
The British Government has to be stopped from treating world conflicts and human rights abuses as Arms Trade opportunities - and you have to be stopped from attempting to prevent discussion on these facts.
Jim Carroll